DETAILED ACTION
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Restriction Requirement maintained:
Applicant’s traversal has been considered but is not persuasive. The restriction requirement is maintained.
The claims are directed to patentably distinct inventions namely:
A gas sensor device (claim 1-22);
A method for generating an absorption spectrum of a gas (claim 23); and
A method for producing a gas sensor device (claim 24).
The inventions are independent and not obvious variants. The method claims recite steps and limitations that are neither required by nor inherent in the apparatus claims, and the manufacturing method is distinct from both device structure and gas analysis. Examination of these inventions would require different classifications, searches, and prior art, thereby imposing a serious burden on the examiner.
Applicants’ assertion that claims 23 is substantially aligned with the apparatus claims is not persuasive. Overlap in field or terminology does not negate patentable distinctness where the claims are directed to different statutory categories and technical problems.
Accordingly, the restriction requirement is proper and maintained. Claims 23-24 are withdrawn. Non-elected claims are withdrawn from consideration without prejudice.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/16/2023 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole et al. hereinafter Tole (WO 2019046689 A1) in view of Miles et al. hereinafter Miles (US 20230053201 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Tole discloses a gas sensor device (detect the composition of one or more gases or other compositions in a chamber, para [0076]), comprising:
a cavity (chamber 10),
wherein the cavity includes gas-permeable openings (70, 72) and reflective surfaces (reflective surface 57); and
a radio-frequency component comprising a radio-frequency chip and at least one radio- frequency antenna configured to emit radio-frequency signals into the cavity (emitter 40 for transmitting a high frequency signal of electromagnetic radiation, into and through a chamber 10, para. [0077]) and to receive reflected radio-frequency signals from the cavity (a receiver 50 for receiving the electromagnetic radiation (signal) after it has been transmitted through chamber 10 from emitter 40, para. [0079]),
wherein the reflected radio-frequency signals correspond to the radio-frequency signals reflected by the reflective surfaces (reflective surface 57 may be a stainless-steel flat surface or another reflective material that will reflect the emitted beam and return it back to the source 50, para. [0091]).
Tole discloses all the claimed subject matter except the cavity is delimited by an electrically conductive material.
Miles invention related to the generation of nitric oxide in a cavity discloses the microwave cavity is typically constructed from an electrically conductive material because it serves as a stub as well as a faraday cage to contain electromagnetic emissions (para. [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tole’s gas sensor device to include a cavity delimited by an electrically conductive material, as thought by Miles, because Miles expressly teaches that electrically conductive cavity structure function as a Faraday cage to contain electromagnetic emission and improve signal integrity. Incorporating an electrically conductive cavity into Tole’s device would have been a predictable design choice to enhance electromagnetic shielding, reflection efficiency, and measurement reliability of the reflected radio frequency signals, thereby yielding predictable results without changing the principal operation.
With respect to claim 2, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole discloses dimensions of the gas-permeable openings are configured to an effect that the cavity forms a cavity resonator for the radio-frequency signals emitted into the cavity (a chamber includes one or more emitters that are configured to emit electromagnetic radiation having a spectrum of frequencies and are positioned to direct the emitted electromagnetic radiation from outside the chamber into the chamber through a first window on the chamber, para. [0021]).
However, Tole is silent about the electrically conductive material forming the cavity forms a Faraday cage.
Miles further discloses the microwave cavity is typically constructed from an electrically conductive material because it serves as a stub as well as a faraday cage to contain electromagnetic emissions (para. [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tole’s gas sensor device to include a cavity delimited by an electrically conductive material, as thought by Miles, because Miles expressly teaches that electrically conductive cavity structure function as a Faraday cage to contain electromagnetic emission and improve signal integrity. Incorporating an electrically conductive cavity into Tole’s device would have been a predictable design choice to enhance electromagnetic shielding, reflection efficiency, and measurement reliability of the reflected radio frequency signals, thereby yielding predictable results without changing the principal operation.
With respect to claim 3, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the cavity is configured to receive a gas by way of the gas-permeable openings (chamber 10 may be regulated via an inflow through inlet 70 and an outflow through outlet 72 so that particles can enter or exit the chamber, para. [0092]), and the at least one radio-frequency antenna is configured to emit the radio-frequency signals into the cavity in a frequency range which comprises at least one absorption frequency of the gas (emitting, by one or more emitters, electromagnetic radiation having a spectrum of frequencies in at least one of a terahertz, infrared or millimeter wave spectrum and directing the emitted electromagnetic radiation into a segment of the open environment, para. [0042]).
With respect to claim 4, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 3 above. Tole further discloses a processing component configured to process the reflected radio-frequency signals received from the cavity by the at least one radio-frequency antenna (Apparatus 30 also includes a receiver 50 for receiving the electromagnetic radiation (signal) after it has been transmitted through chamber 10 from emitter 40, para. [0079]) and to provide an absorption spectrum of the gas based on the reflected radio-frequency signals (Using principles of absorption spectroscopy, the array or the beam emits electromagnetic radiation that interacts with the molecules / atoms of the gas or plasma with which it comes into contact. The radiation may be partially or fully absorbed by the composition in chamber 10. Receiver 50, such as a photo conducting receiver, receives, via window 55, the non-absorbed electromagnetic radiation that passes through the gas or plasma molecules and passes the signal to amplifier/converter 60, para. [0086]).
With respect to claim 5, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses a dimension of each of the gas-permeable openings (70, 72) is smaller than a wavelength of the radio- frequency signals emitted into the cavity (10) by the at least one radio-frequency antenna (50, 55).
With respect to claim 6, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole is silent about a maximum dimension of the cavity is in a range of from 2 times a wavelength of the radio- frequency signals emitted into the cavity by the at least one radio-frequency antenna up to 50 times the wavelength. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a maximum cavity dimension within a range of about 2 to 50 times the wavelength of the emitted radio frequency signals for the gas sensor device of Tole, as modified by Miles, because scaling cavity dimensions relative to wavelength is a known design parameter in RF cavity design used to achieve desired resonance and field distribution, representing a result-effective variable whose optimization would have involved routine experimentation with predictable results.
With respect to claim 7, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses a frequency of the radio-frequency signals emitted into the cavity by the at least one radio- frequency antenna is in a range of 100 GHz to 1 THz (frequency extender module from 500-750 GHz, para. [0083]).
With respect to claim 8, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the electrically conductive material comprises a metal cover (chamber 10 covered, in its interior, with a stainless-steel flat surface 57, para. [0100]).
With respect to claim 9, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 8 above. Tole does not explicitly disclose the gas-permeable openings are formed in the metal cover. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the gas permeable openings in the metal cover of the gas sensor device of Tole, as modified by Miles, because providing openings in a metal cover to permit gas ingress while maintaining structural integrity and electromagnetic shielding is a well-known design choice that yields predictable result.
With respect to claim 10, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole is silent about the radio-frequency component is arranged inside the cavity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to alternatively arrange the radio-frequency components inside or outside the cavity as a matter of design choice, as both configurations were known and yield predictable results. As taught by Miles, electrically conductive cavities are commonly used to manage electromagnetic behavior, and placement of radio-frequency components relative to such cavities is a routine engineering consideration.
With respect to claim 11, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the radio-frequency component is arranged outside the cavity (see Fig. 1 that shows 40 and 50 arranged outside chamber 10).
With respect to claim 12, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 11 above. Tole is further disclosing the cavity (10) is arranged on a first main surface of a printed circuit board (45 or 55) and the radio-frequency component (40 or 50) is arranged on a second main surface of the printed circuit board (45 or 55) that is situated opposite to the first main surface (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 13, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 11 above. Tole is silent about the cavity is arranged on a main surface of a printed circuit board and the radio-frequency component is embedded into the printed circuit board. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrange the cavity on a main surface of the printed circuit board and embed the radio-frequency component therein as a matter of design choice, since such placement involves known alternatives performing the same function with predictable results.
With respect to claim 14, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the cavity (10) is at least partly delimited by a printed circuit board (45, 55) and a part of the material delimiting the cavity is arranged on the printed circuit board (see Fig. 1 where 45/55 and 10 intersects). Tole is silent about part of the material delimiting the cavity is electrically conductive.
Miles further discloses the cavity is typically constructed from an electrically conductive material to contain electromagnetic emissions (para. [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Tole’s gas sensor device to include a cavity delimited by an electrically conductive material, as thought by Miles, because Miles expressly teaches that electrically conductive cavity structure function as a Faraday cage to contain electromagnetic emission and improve signal integrity. Incorporating an electrically conductive cavity into Tole’s device would have been a predictable design choice to enhance electromagnetic shielding, reflection efficiency, and measurement reliability of the reflected radio frequency signals, thereby yielding predictable results without changing the principal operation.
With respect to claim 16, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the cavity (10) is at least partly delimited by the radio-frequency component (40, 45) and a part of the electrically conductive material (45, 55) delimiting the cavity is arranged on the radio-frequency component (see Fig. 1).
With respect to claim 17, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Miles further discloses the electrically conductive material comprises a coating arranged on an inner surface of the electrically conductive material (the cavity coated or lined with an electrically conductive material, para. [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas sensor device of Tole to include an electrically conductive coating arranged on an inner surface of the cavity as thought by Miles, because applying a conductive coating is a known technique to form or enhance an electrically conductive cavity, thereby improving electromagnetic containment and signal reflection, and would have yielded predictable results without altering the fundamental operation of the device.
With respect to claim 18, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Miles further discloses the electrically conductive material comprises a layer stack arranged on an inner surface of the electrically conductive material that defines a boundary of the cavity (The microwave cavity is typically constructed from an electrically conductive material, para. Para. [0163]), wherein the layer stack comprises at least one ferromagnetic layer and at least one electrically conductive layer (the microwave cavity is coated or lined with an electrically conductive material (e.g., aluminum, silver, nickel, copper), para. [0163]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the gas sensor device of Tole to include an electrically conductive layer stack as thought by Miles, since applying conductive coating is a known technique to form or enhance an electrically conductive cavity, thereby improving electromagnetic containment and signal reflection, and would have yielded predictable results without altering the fundamental operation of the device.
With respect to claim 19, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 2 above. Tole discloses sensor measurement qualities at least in para. [0056] and [0075]. However, Tole does not explicitly disclose a quality factor of the cavity resonator is greater than 103. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure the cavity resonator of Tole to have a quality factor greater than 103, as higher Q-factors were a known result effective variable for improving sensor measurement quality and sensitivity. Optimizing the Q-factor would have been a matter of routine experimentation with predictable results. Such optimization would not have altered the fundamental operation of the gas sensor.
With respect to claim 20, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole further discloses the radio-frequency component comprises a shielding structure configured to reduce an absorption of one or more radio-frequency signals by the at least one radio-frequency antenna (Receiver 50 may be positioned outside of chamber 10 outside a second window 55 that, similar to window 45, permits a beam of electromagnetic radiation to pass therethrough. Receiver 50 may be positioned away from window 55 with a beam directed therein, in contact with window 55 or may be incorporated into window 55, para. [0079]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole and Miles as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Travan et al. hereinafter Travan (US 20220236207 A1).
With respect to claim 15, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 14 above. Tole as modified by Miles is silent about the gas-permeable openings are formed in the printed circuit board.
Travan invention related to the field of gas sensing devices discloses the gas-permeable openings (filter 12) are formed in the printed circuit board (substrate 9).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the gas-permeable openings in the printed circuit board as taught by Travan, in order to provide a known and predictable structure for gas access to the sensor cavity, yielding predictable results without changing the principle of operation.
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tole and Miles as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schat et al. hereafter Schat (US 10097287 B1).
With respect to claim 21, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole modified by Miles is silent about a switch configured to change a terminating impedance of the at least one radio- frequency antenna during at least one of a time period between an emission of successive radio- frequency signals or a time period between a reception of successive reflected radio-frequency signals.
Schat invention related to radar systems discloses a switch configured to change a terminating impedance of the at least one radio- frequency antenna during at least one of a time period between an emission of successive radio- frequency signals or a time period between a reception of successive reflected radio-frequency signals (transmitting antenna, and providing a periodically switched control signal to impedance-altering circuitry of the transmit path to produce a phase modulated signal as the output signal, claim 5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas sensor device of Tole, as modified by Miles, to include a switch configured to change a terminating impedance of the radio-frequency antenna as taught by Schat, because impedance switching during intervals between successive transmissions or receptions was a known technique for controlling signal phase and response characteristics in RF systems. Applying this known technique would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have involved the use of a known result-effective variable.
With respect to claim 22, Tole and Miles disclose the gas sensor device according to claim 1 above. Tole as modified by Miles is silent about the at least one radio-frequency antenna is configured to emit the radio-frequency signals in the form of chirp signals.
Schat further discloses at least one radio-frequency antenna is configured to emit the radio-frequency signals in the form of chirp signals (the phase modulating includes providing the amplified version of the chirp signal on a transmit path to the transmitting antenna, and providing a periodically switched control signal to impedance-altering circuitry of the transmit path to produce a phase modulated signal as the output signal, col. 13 lines 47-53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gas sensor device of Tole, as modified by Miles, to emit radio-frequency signals as taught by Schat, because using chirp signals was a known technique in RF systems that yields predictable performance benefits without altering the fundamental operation of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20140260545 A1 discloses a sensor, comprising: a sensor layer comprising a sensor material, wherein an electrical resistance of the sensor material changes upon adsorption of an adsorbate at the sensor material; a circuit electrically coupled to the sensor layer and configured to apply an electrical current to the sensor layer that heats the sensor layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEDEON M KIDANU whose telephone number is (571)270-0591. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at/ http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached at 303-297-4237. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GEDEON M KIDANU/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/KRISTINA M DEHERRERA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855 12/29/25